Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

On 3 September I asked CMI's Calvin Smith the following by a wide circulation email (they block me from making any comments under their actual articles):

"http://creation.com/creation-the-better-explanation"Below are 10 instances where the biblical creation based explanation of the observations were so much more reasonable than the previous evolutionary ones that evolutionists have actually adopted the creationist explanation to a great degree (even though they still hold to evolution)."

What the liar Smith means is that 'evolutionists' are REFUSING to fully embrace biblical creation based 'explanations' as more 'reasonable' but are refusing to do so for no valid scientific reason. But can he show this is the case? NO.

(1) "At one time any mention of catastrophism pertaining to geologic processes was mocked and ridiculed as religious and unscientific in the mainstream geologic community, which almost unanimously conformed to Charles Lyell’s uniformitarian views". Young earth creationist ideologues like Smith reject ALL uniformitarianism because this disproves a 'young' Earth. Scientists have simply accepted SOME catastrophism. But they reject a 'recent global flood' because there is NO evidence for it whatsoever.

(2) "So evolutionists now accept the creationist position that fossils can form quickly." So what? The ones in question still formed quickly a very very long time ago.

(3) "The long held evolutionary belief that because all living things supposedly have the same genetic code we are all linked back to one original life form has been shattered by recent research however." This - alluded to by evolutionist Craig Venter in the quoted exchange with evolutionist Paul Davies - is hardly earth shattering or a falsification of the so-called universal or standard genetic code within life on Earth. According to Wikipedia, researchers have uncovered slight variations of the code within human and other mitochondrial (not nuclear) genes, as well as variations such as the translation of the codon UGA as tryptophan in various mycoplasma bacterial species and the translation of CUG as a serine rather than a leucine in some yeasts such as Candida albicans.

(4) "Rapid speciation has recently been observed in different varieties of mosquitoes, mice, daisies, flies, finches, finches, lizards, butterflies and many other creatures." Maybe. But NOT so rapid that in the words of Smith "approximately 8,000 ... kinds of creatures that were on board Noah’s Ark [less than 5,000 years ago] could account for the millions of species we see around the world today". That is utter fiction. And if that is also the 'creationist position' that Smith is referring to, which it assuredly is, then NO - evolutionists have NOT 'conceded' it. Because it is utter fiction and make-believe (and not even biblical since Genesis speaks of animals multiplying as they spread across the Earth rather than rapidly changing into similar but different new species that would no longer interbreed).

(5) "Once again the evolutionists have adopted the creationist’s position, insofar that they now concede that the vast majority of the human genome isn’t ‘junk’." The ENCODE Project team suggested that about 80% of DNA (not 100%) has a biochemical function; other scientists dispute this saying that just because a piece of DNA has biological activity that does not demonstrate that it has an important function in a cell.

(6) "'Vestigial' organs have function." In the world of Calvin Smith that is reason enough for a Christian or non-Christian to immediately embrace young earth creationism.

(7) Smith is attacking one of young earth creationism's favourite bogeyman, Ernst Haeckel - who of course is not around to defend himself. Smith should of course know that although SOME other human species once existed but they are all now extinct, evolutionary theory does not preclude the possibility that some of them might still have been around at the start of the 20th century. The idea that because we now know that this is not the case, therefore scientists should reject evolution and embrace young earth creationism instead is laughable. And whilst it was long suspected that all of us alive today belong to the same human species, the only one that is still extant, we have been aware of the results of the Human Genome Project for just 15 years.

(8) Smith's religiously-motivated claim that Neanderthals were 'fully human' (what about eg Homo erectus) is only supported by a minority of genuine scientists. "The variances in body structure fall within the normal range of humans." Prove it.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/scien ... .html?_r=0 (never mind the morphological differences between us and Neanderthals)"And to top it all off DNA studies have shown that Neanderthals bred with modern humans, meaning they themselves must have been fully human." What a stupid statement. Is Smith really denying that hybridisation can never [ever] happen in nature? "Once again the honest evolutionist must concede that the creationist position was correct all along." That is a lie. If the Bible was infallible, no other human species should EVER have lived.

(9) "However, there is abundant evidence now agreed upon by evolutionary scientists that the entire human race on the planet today originated from two people just a few thousand years ago." Calvin Smith is a Liar. "The majority of evolutionists have adopted the biblical creationist position." Calvin Smith is a Liar.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve (the 'creationist position'?)

(10) "Today, the majority of evolutionists believe in the ‘Out of Africa’ theory, where people came from a small founding group a short (for them) time ago and dispersed across the planet. So except for the more southern dispersion point, most evolutionists now hold to a much more creationist viewpoint." At this point words fail me.

Of course the CMI Facebook zealots will lap this up. Ten more nails in the 'coffin' of 'evolutionism'! From the dishonest 'creationist position'. "There is no reason to fear challenges from the scientific community." There would be if you stopped lying and making absurd claims Mr Smith.

Science is not infallible. Whereas Smith clearly believes that the Bible IS infallible. Which is behind his opening comment that the Bible (NOT evidence from the natural world) is the 'best' starting point when conducting origins science.

I am submitting this comment to CMI in the UK by email using their website. It will of course NEVER be published on their website and they will NEVER reply to my points either."

Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Sat Oct 31, 2015 4:16 pm, edited 4 times in total.

This week I have received Smith's response, during the course of some email exchanges where I challenged some strident online claims that were being made by other young earth creationists.

Him:"Hi to whomever has placed me on this spam list.As someone who claims to be interested in honesty etc please respect my wishes to be removed from this list. I did not solicit these mass emails nor do I want to continue to receive them.Please do not bother to place some denigrating tag comment back to me as some cheap parting shot either. I have not made some ad hominem attack on anyone and in the interest of fairness do not believe I deserve one either.Thank you in advance.C Smith"

Me:"Calvin Smith of Creation Ministries International was added to recent emails largely because of a recent article by him on the CMI website which I contend was dishonest. A claim he has yet to address. I refer to my email of 3 September [which I reproduced in full], which was copied to him and to most of you. I would be very interested to know whether Calvin actually read my email - but I rather doubt that he will ever confirm whether he has done so or not. But just dismissing it as 'Ad hominem' (it was in part) and thus not meriting of any kind of response will certainly not do as an attempted rebuttal (if CMI did not censor all my comments under their articles I would have placed the contents of my email there). Just like his article, my email was very detailed.I also backed up my 'Ad hominem' attack about the Answers in Genesis claims and 'rebuttals' with facts, Calvin. They of course are either blocking me or else reading my comments but then totally ignoring them without trying to refute them. I will try to remember not to include you in any new emails I might send. Other than any responding to any response you might make to my email of 3 September that is."

Him:"I am not interested in your excuses as to why I have been added to your spam list and I am extremely disappointed that you included me yet again in your online rant. I know 14 year old children that have more maturity than to send unsolicited mass mail outs to somehow bolster their over-inflated egos.This is the online equivalent of slimy advertisers stuffing trashy flyers into mailboxes when there are clear signs on the persons porch saying 'no flyers', truly pathetic.Don't 'try to remember not to include' me in any more of your spam emails, simply remove me from your list as I politely requested. Be a man and have the maturity and dignity to follow internet social protocol and not to be a cyber troll. Truly disgusting to see grown people reduced to such childish behaviour.And please don't demean yourself any further by sending back yet ANOTHER response with yet ANOTHER pathetic justification as to why you sent me some email in the first place! Simply REMOVE me from your list.Thank you."

Me:"Calvin Smith showing his true colours to the world. He will not - or simply cannot - attempt to refute my original message about his lengthy recent article on the CMI website (where comments are permitted so long as they are not by me)."

Him:"Wow, just wow... A truly childish, pathetic, rude and immature internet spamming troll with no class, integrity, or manners. I received notices back from several other people on your spam list that warned me that you were beyond regular social norms but I thought I should at least give you the benefit of the doubt. You have revealed yourself to be the worst type of internet abuser. Simply shrill, crass, trashy behaviour. Certainly beneath anyone that typically considers themselves in any way intellectual.I will not be receiving any emails from you ever again as I am blocking you immediately after sending this so don't even bother trying to send some lame answer back to try and redeem any of your lost dignity.C Smith"

Me (only copied to four others, not all the original copy recipients unlike the previous messages):"Calvin Smith - an unrepentant liar who reacts with outrage and indignation when his internet lies are exposed. And he's determined to have the last libellous word about me to all the copy recipients! But I am sure that all the honest copy recipients will make up their own mind about Mr Smith. Any dishonest ones will close their Christian ranks."

I have just re-read Smith's point (9) and my comments on it. I would concede that he does explain in more detail than I quoted what 'evolutionists' have discovered. Mitochondrial 'Eve' and Y Chromosomal 'Adam' - who they believe both lived somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago (which is not "a few thousand years ago"). And they have only adopted the 'biblical creationist position' in PART - ie these individuals were not the only humans when they procreated (not with each other!) and they were not the FIRST humans either (also mitochondrial 'Eve' is thought to have lived in East Africa, contrary to the biblical 'first couple'). Smith does have a point but he oversimplifies things too much. And the current evolutionary position on these most recent female and male common ancestors results from simply following the genetic evidence as I understand it. They would no doubt disagree that our species was originally - or ever - down to just two individuals.